[Stoves] Ghana news: Second Lady named GACC ambassador; HAP deaths "alarming"

[Nikhil Desai]

Crispin:

Just a coincidence that your post reminded me of a case connecting
workplace sexual harassment of young women and cookstove emissions.

Why of course, I am thinking of the economist R. K. Pachauri, formerly of
Teri, The Energy Research Institute in New Delhi and of the IPCC. It was
via Teri that the first formal study of Indian indoor air pollution from
solid fuel cookstoves began, in early 1983.  Clean Cooking Forum 2017 is
being held not too far from where it all started then.

Thinking of your grotesque analogy, I guess physical violence leads to
long-term trauma for the survivors, a mental health issue. A co-damage if
you will.

In the WHO claims on HAP, there is a mental violence done by abuse of
science.

In each case, what happens behind the doors is kept unspoken. That is a
societal cost of putting up with conceit and deceit of the violators.

Please let us know which document of WHO says that HAP "kills". I will post
two very short WHO statements (3-4 pages each) on HAP BOD methods and
results, and also quote from a Kirk Smith paper about how the GBD
attributable deaths rose in numbers. (I quoted from GBD 2016 that HAP
attributable deaths have now gone down from 2000 to 2016).

On claims like "kills" or the 2014 WHO document on HFC "guidelines"
interfering with stove performance metrics and protocols, you could request
your national government to take the matter to WHO Director General to
complain that WHO has exceeded its remit and it has issued misleading
public health statements.

Nikhil

PS: There is a WSJ front page story about a startup making false
claims - Outcome,
a Hot Tech Startup, Misled Advertisers With Manipulated Information,
Sources Say
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/outcome-a-hot-tech-startup-misled-advertisers-with-manipulated-information-sources-say-1507834627>
Rolfe
Winkler 13 October 2017. Arguendo, the technology was aimed to "nudge"
(term from the new Nobel economist Richard Thaler) patients waiting in
doctors' offices to a the drug that pharma companies paid Outcome to market
via televisions in selected doctors' offices.  I wonder if Outcome should
have instead sold aDALYs from nudging.






On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Tom
>
> I don't want to contradict either of you on the various interpretations
> but I would like to check something with you, as it is mere opinion:
>
> "According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution from
> cooking kills over 4 million people every year and sickens millions more."
>
> Do think think the average reader of that quote realises that the quote
> should be:
>
> "According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution from
> cooking contributes to the premature death of over 4 million people every
> year and sickens millions more."
> ‎
> There is ‎only one occurrence I can find in the WHO documents that says
> 'kills' and it misquotes another WHO document that says 'premature deaths'.
>
> The 'kills' argument leads to [multiple cites] things ‎like, 'cooking
> kills x-many women per day' and 'since we have been talking in this meeting
> y-many women and children have died from cooking smoke'.
>
> The abuse of statistics is universal but I see nothing wrong with stating
> problems as they are, in a context, with realistic plans and expectations,
> and competent implementation of appropriate solutions. ‎That's just me.
> Maybe I am not 'Hollywood' enough.
>
> The 'creation of memes' centered on headline-grabbing alarm and
> calamity-mongering is a major distraction. I am saying *nothing* against
> the central proposition about smoke and health. My father died from
> cigarette-induced lung cancer. Does that qualify me to make emotional
> appeals for lower performance tier target values? No.
>
> There is a popular story in the press right now that surely no one can
> miss. It is that in Hollywood there is a serious problem of sexual violence
> against women who have to leave their homes daily to earn a living, or at
> least make the attempt. Shall we stovers propose that if these women and
> girls were provided with a commercial quality stove, pot and training to
> make jam, and the opportunity to sell through a cooperative store, the
> number of these assaults would be reduced? This seems to be a good
> proposal. ‎There are lots of people around Waterloo who know how to make
> jam.
>
> The number of exposures to violence could be reduced if these women at
> least had a coffee maker because a lot of these attacks apparently start in
> a coffee shop. We have a responsibility to protect those vulnerable women
> ‎who are only in Hollywood because of a lack of opportunities in the rest
> of the country. Some of them were already fleeing violence at home.
>
> Please send $145 for each women you want me to save. I'll give them the
> kind that makes good cappuccinos. ‎They like them (it's cultural).
>
> ‎This is the quality of argument that is being used to raise funding.
> There is a well-established correlation between young girls in Hollywood
> meeting producers for a drink and sexual violence. Surely a cooking device
> of some kind is the solution.
>
> Two more things:
>
> The 'all PM2.5 causes illness and or death' is based on an *argumentum ad
> ignorantium* meaning proof from ignorance: 'all PM2.5 is equally toxic
> because we have not proven that it isn't.' That is the founding claim (and
> wording, paraphrased) of the EPA's regulations which serves as the basis
> for the WHO's calculations. Nikhil traced that to source.
>
> ‎The Kyrgyzstan winter stove pilot proved beyond doubt that getting the
> smoke outside, alternatively not making as much *and* getting it outside,
> reduces personal exposure, a conclusion reached without modeling any
> kitchens or dispersion. It also showed that men have higher exposure to
> PM2.5 than either children or women and benefitted the most from the
> improved stoves and installations.
>
> The inference here is that there is a lot more going on in Hollywood than
> we supposed. ‎Details available in installments at the checkout till in
> your favourite store.
>
> Regards
> ‎Crispin
>
>
> Nikhil,
>
>
>
> You complain that there is no demonstrated causality between emissions
> metrics (HAPS, PM2.5) and mortality and argue that therefore a stoves
> program shouldn’t be based on models and estimates of mortality. For many
> years the doctors in this community have advocated for more physiological
> studies.  Direct causes are difficult to get from death records. For
> example, my father’s death certificate lists a cause that was the
> consequence of the treatment rather than the cancer that he suffered from
> so he might not show up in a cancer statistic. I do know that wherever I
> travel people in industry and in government are concerned about PM 2.5
> levels from any combustion source. Real or imaginary a relationship is
> assumed and PM 2.5 is regulated.
>
>
>
> The stove policies and programs are based on a strong statistical
> correlation between PM 2.5 and reported mortality due to respiratory or
> cardiovascular causes. That correlation has been validated for some
> developed and developing countries. (Every study I have seen cautions about
> the shortcomings of the statistics but the correlations are strong.) If I
> were a policymaker I would find enough justification in the statistical
> correlation to promote healthier environments through programs like
> improved cookstoves of all kinds. The estimates that you complain about are
> likely based on the global rather than local statistics.
>
>
>
> You have told us at least weekly for almost a year that you are unhappy
> with using health indicators to justify improved stoves programs but you
> have not offered any alternative. (Listening to your complaints has been
> like listening to a broken record.) What do you propose? And, what should
> the stoves community do about it?
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171014/639ac209/attachment.html>